Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
OBERGFELL DIVERSION
Structure dossier · WDID 7201313 · 8 · COLORADO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:52 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.
Where it sits
Location as DWR records it. Faint dots are the neighbouring water; click any to open it.
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1977-02-28 — 1200th most senior of the 2166 structures with decreed rights in this water districtDWR's administrative subdivision of a river basin; the unit calls are usually stated in..
Under prior appropriationColorado's rule for sharing water: first in time, first in right. Age decides, not proximity or need., everything ahead of it in this line is satisfied in full before it receives any water. Immediately ahead: MESA WATER WORKS WELL 2 (1977-02-22). Immediately behind: OBERGFELL DIVERSION NEW POINT (1977-02-28).
Decreed rights (1)
| Admin noDWR's numeric encoding of a water right's seniority. Smaller is more senior; the integer part counts days from 1849-12-31 to the date that ranks the right. | AppropriatedWhen water was first put to beneficial use. It sets seniority unless a prior adjudication date is later. | AdjudicatedWhen the water court confirmed the right. A use decreed in 1975 was not a decreed use in 1955, however old the appropriation is. | AbsoluteA right actually put to use, as opposed to conditional -- a placeholder for a use not yet made. | ConditionalA right reserving a place in line for a use not yet made; it must be diligently pursued or it lapses. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 46445.0 | 1977-02-28 | 1977-12-31 | 2.0 | 16.0 | C | IRRMUNINDDOM |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
W3468, 96CW0107, 86CW0011, 03CW0007, 01CW0337.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3468 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
96CW0107 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
86CW0011 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
03CW0007 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
01CW0337 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
DWR's own records for this structure: net amounts · transactions & adjudication history · scanned decrees (search a case number there for the imaged document). On this site: the district's full legal picture →
Recorded use (last 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 631 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2016, came in at 185 AF — 29% of that, and 1st lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
| Year | Diverted (AFA volume: one acre covered a foot deep, about 326,000 gallons -- roughly a suburban household's outdoor use for a year.) | Compared with its own record | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 726 | 14th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 191 | 2.0 |
| 2001 | 818 | 15th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 191 | 2.2 |
| 2002 | 607 | 5th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 157 | 2.0 |
| 2003 | 631 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 169 | 2.0 |
| 2004 | 619 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 161 | 2.0 |
| 2005 | 536 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 150 | 2.0 |
| 2006 | 627 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 174 | 2.0 |
| 2007 | 686 | 13th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 186 | 2.0 |
| 2008 | 591 | 4th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 164 | 2.0 |
| 2009 | 666 | 11th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 176 | 2.0 |
| 2011 | 661 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 183 | 2.0 |
| 2012 | 651 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 177 | 2.0 |
| 2013 | 321 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 164 | 1.0 |
| 2014 | 684 | 12th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 184 | 2.0 |
| 2016 | 185 | 1st lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 188 | 0.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade A (9/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.
The rubric, component by component
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3208 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 77% of the irrigation seasons in 1997-2016 carry measured days |
| published-record stability | stable | no upstream revisions recorded against this structure |
Advisory reading aid on public data — not an administrative or legal conclusion, not a title opinion, and not a substitute for DWR administration or an engineer's analysis. Methodology review status is disclosed at hydrohistorian's basin pages.